Except for Eisenhower and Reagan, weve been badly governed since WWII. Bush is simply representative of the shallow, politically correct, short-sighted mindset that afflicts our elites.

This has not been accidental. Don't forget that Bush comes from a long line of "elites". His actions are not short-sighted when you accept the fact that the "elites" are, and always have been, Bush's real constituents.

It's the reason Bush was elected. It's the reason for his domestic policies and his foreign policies.

64
posted on 02/03/2011 8:28:08 AM PST
by Ol' Dan Tucker
(People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)

On the statement regarding early views on the mass immigration to the United States, the President is quoted as saying this was argued at an earlier time, that there were, "too many Jews and Italians".

I would respectfully point out that even without virtually any safety net of public assistance, those people arrived and wept tears of relief or joy. This in the early turn of the last century. Then they were on their own, or with ethnic support groups. Their lot was undeniably a hard one at first. They became Americans.

Today, certain of these latest immigrants not only detest America, they try to leech off the system they dislike. Crying slogans for supporting an other culture that they fled and now wish to transplant. Others openly preach some form of domination over America.

I've been anti-Bush since 2003 - before it was cool - for a conservative, that is. You can ask any of my DC Chapter friends. I told them long ago Bush was effing everything up. John Derbyshire, read below, explains my sentiments to a tee.

...Margaret Thatcher used to talk about the ratchet effect. When the Left gets power, she said, they drive everything Left; when the Right gets power, they slow the Leftward drive, perhaps even halt it for a spell; but nothing ever gets moved to the Right. U.S. politics in the 21st century so far bears out this dismal analysis. What does the Right have to show for eight years of a Republican presidency? I supported George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought he had a conservative bone in his body somewhere. I supported him in 2004 because I thought him the lesser of two evils. At this point, I wouldnt let the fool park his car in my driveway. Bruce Bartlett was right, every damn word...

I promise -- if the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Doles, Obamas, and whatever other wannabee dynasty from the recent two or so decades of treason and national destruction, just goes away and shuts up forever, I promise, promise, promise, I will quit posting and speaking the embarrassing, awful truths about their corruption, treason, and destructive actions against the USA and its citizens.

Otherwise, no deal. They all suck eggs. They all despise the US Constitution and the USA. They all despise the American people. They all despise "a republican form of government" of, for, and by the people.

I promise -- if the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Doles, Obamas, and whatever other wannabee dynasty from the recent two or so decades of treason and national destruction, just goes away and shuts up forever, I promise, promise, promise, I will quit posting and speaking the embarrassing, awful truths about their corruption, treason, and destructive actions against the USA and its citizens.

If I suddenly became Lord High Grand Poo-Bah, I would start prosecuting a whole bunch of government officials for countless civil rights violations, but I would offer up a deal to many of them: prosecutions will generally be done in order of expiring statute of limitations. Prosecution of people for certain lesser, but significant, civil rights violations could be suspended indefinitely if those people agree that: (1) the statute of limitations with regard to their offenses will be waived, but they will not be charged for those offenses provided that (2) they never again seek any position of government trust, or occupy any government post where they would have discretionary authority over anyone who is not a government official, or who has discretionary authority over anyone who is not a government official, etc; (3) If the agents ever again occupy or seek to occupy a position of authority which is forbidden by (2), they will be prosecuted for their earlier offenses.

I suspect many government agents would realize that they'd be well-advised to accept such a deal. While I wouldn't be terribly happy about letting the crooks in government escape punishment, the more agents decide to voluntarily leave power, the more practical it would be to prosecute those who remain.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.